From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: markgross@thegnar.org
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>,
David Alan Gilbert <linux@treblig.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len <len.brown@intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch] idle governor: Avoid lock acquisition to read pm_qos before entering idle
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:27:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1297358844.2645.140.camel@schen9-DESK> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110210051042.GC4897@gvim.org>
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 21:10 -0800, mark gross wrote:
>
> I'm surprised by this as the last update to the pm_qos replaced the
> lists with a O(1) data structure so there was no more walking of pending
> requests.
But you need to acquire a lock before you can read the value on the list
within the function pm_qos_request. This is a problem if there are a
lot of cpus doing so.
>
> What is the profile after the patch the Plist should be only one
> dereference and an if instruction slower than a cached value.
After the patch, the acquisition of the lock on plist go away from the
profile, and I see a 12% improvement in throughput to the message
passing benchmark I was running.
>
> Does your patch remove the need for the locks because if it doesn't I
> don't see how it will make much of a difference?
We still need the lock to update/remove/insert values in the plist and
to update the cached value. The intention of the patch is to avoid lock
acquisition by reading from a cached value that is up to date. Lock
acquisition is needed --every time-- when a cpu go into idle, which is
bad as you want to let a cpu go to idle ASAP.
Tim
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-10 17:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-10 1:21 Tim Chen
2011-02-10 3:46 ` Andi Kleen
2011-02-10 18:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-02-10 5:10 ` mark gross
2011-02-10 16:20 ` Andi Kleen
2011-02-10 17:27 ` Tim Chen [this message]
2011-02-10 17:45 ` James Bottomley
2011-02-10 18:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-02-10 19:33 ` Tim Chen
2011-02-10 20:37 ` James Bottomley
2011-02-10 17:55 ` mark gross
2011-02-10 23:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-02-11 0:50 ` Tim Chen
2011-02-11 19:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-02-11 19:27 ` Tim Chen
2011-02-11 19:33 ` James Bottomley
2011-02-11 20:03 ` Tim Chen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1297358844.2645.140.camel@schen9-DESK \
--to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@suse.de \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@treblig.org \
--cc=markgross@thegnar.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®